Time to Honour Bure?

Well I don't see him as a criminal. A bonehead yes, but I don't think that there should have been legal action. Not going to derail the thread arguing with you over that, obviously you have more of an interest in the legal side of things.

Bertuzzi's 18 months as an elite player are 18 more than Linden and Smyl had combined.

Bertuzzi is taking advice from lawyers who don't want to lose the case - why wouldn't they attempt to shift the blame?

Anyways, just playing devil's advocate, I was a massive Bure fan and not so massive Bertuzzi fan, and I see both as unworthy of a jersey retirement. If Bure got into the ROH I'd be happy, and same with Big Bert.

I see Bertuzzi as a criminal because he was convicted under the Criminal Code of Canada of assault causing bodily harm. That is a fact.

As to why the criminal law applies, the judge said in sentencing Bertuzzi:

[36] There is a brief statement in one of the cases that has been referred to which really sets out the relationship of the courts to what goes on on the rink. It is an old decision. It is the case of R. v. Watson (1975), 26 C.C.C. (2d) 150. That was a case which involved an incident during a minor hockey game. There was a striking by one of them with a stick and then a fight and so on. The court there in considering the issue of provocation and all those sorts of things that come up whenever assault trials are heard, brings those principles down to the issue of a hockey game. I am quoting, about halfway through the case. The judge in that case states as follows:

Hockey is a fast, vigorous, competitive game involving much body contact. Were the kind of body contact that routinely occurs in a hockey game to occur outside the playing area or on the street, it would, in most cases, constitute an assault to which the sanctions of the criminal law would apply. Patently when one engages in a hockey game, one accepts that some assaults which would otherwise be criminal will occur and consents to such assaults. It is equally patent, however, that to engage in a game of hockey is not to enter a forum to which the criminal law does not extend. To hold otherwise would be to create the hockey arena a sanctuary for unbridled violence to which the law of Parliament and the Queen's justice could not apply. I know of no authority for such a proposition.

He goes on then to quote from the Maki case, which is one of the first cases involving an NHL hockey player, that:

No sports league, no matter how well organized or self-policed it may be, should thereby render the players in that league immune from criminal prosecution.

To similar effect was the decision of Judge Kitchen when he convicted Marty McSorley of assault with a weapon for slashing the head of Donald Brashear:

[8] In the context of this case, it is especially important for the public to understand how these proceedings were initiated. The question has been asked, "Why are the courts bringing these proceedings?" The answer of course is that the courts had no part in laying the charge. Judges have little or no control over intake into the justice system. Crown Counsel, in their discretion to prosecute, decide which complaints will result in criminal charges.

[9] Mr. Hicks, in his submission, explained why the act of McSorley in striking Brashear resulted in this charge being laid. It was as follows:

"In our submission, that act is precisely why the law, the criminal law, has a place in the hockey rink. It is why the law refuses to sanction those acts as a matter of public policy. It is particularly significant when that act is carried out in the National Hockey League at the highest level of the game in circumstances that are watched by millions of people for whom the game is important, many of whom play that game at a whole variety of levels. That's why the public policy issue justifies the criminal law's involvement, and that's why these rules as to the application of the criminal law are present. Our submission is that this is precisely the kind of case, precisely the fact situation that the criminal law is intended and has a place to deal with. It is way beyond the scope of this game. It is irrelevant. It is an act that is completely irrelevant to the game that is taking place on the ice. Mr. McSorley may have felt that there was a need to deliver a message to his team that we don't quit, but you don't deliver that message by putting another player's health and safety at risk, and that is what happened in this case, we submit, and that is why it is a criminal act."

[10] The power exercised by the Crown in proceeding with matters such as this has been endorsed many times by the courts. As an example, our present Associate Chief Justice Dohm made these comments in 1976 in R. v. Henderson, [1976] 4 W.W.R. 119 at 127:

I fully realize that if too many legal restrictions are placed upon those who participate in sports where the very nature of the game precipitates bodily contact, the game will soon lose not only players but also spectators. It certainly is not my plan in any way to inhibit the interaction between players, but what is society to do when those interactions between participants lead to conduct which, if it were anywhere but in the arena or on a playing field, would attract criminal sanctions without any delay on the part of the authorities? Surely the authorities are not to turn a blind eye while the law of the jungle prevails. Quite the contrary, where there are obvious infractions of the criminal law, the authorities are duty-bound to take whatever action is necessary to prevent a repetition of such conduct.

[11] A related issue includes the question of whether the criminal law process should be pre-empted where discipline procedures have been taken by the hockey authorities. Again, I must emphasize that this is not an issue related to a determination of whether Mr. McSorley has committed a crime.

[12] There are many groups that claim authority to discipline their members. Some are statutory, such as law societies and judicial councils, and some exist by virtue of private contractual arrangements such as in the case of the National Hockey League. Even where the disciplinary body is statutory, its status is often very controversial. There have been many cases before police discipline tribunals and medical licensing authorities where the public has been suspicious of the process, fearing that those involved are getting special treatment or that the truth is being concealed. In my view, there should be a heavy onus on those purporting to pre-empt the normal criminal process, particularly where it is a private organization such as a group of hockey owners. Statutory bodies must act in the public interest; businessmen have no such obligation.

[13] Comments by judges in two previous cases reflect this. In one of the first cases involving NHL players, R. v. Maki, (1970) 1 C.C.C. (2d) 333 at 336, the following comments were made by the trial judge:

Although no criminal charges have been laid in the past pertaining to athletic events in this country, I can see no reason why they could not be in the future where the circumstances warrant and the relevant authorities deem it advisable to do so. No sports league, no matter how well organized or self-policed it may be, should thereby render the players in the league immune from criminal prosecution.

Hockey is a fast, vigorous, competitive game involving much body contact. Were the kind of body contact that routinely occurs in a hockey game to occur outside the playing area or on the street, it would, in most cases, constitute an assault to which the sanctions of the criminal law would apply. Patently, when one engages in a hockey game, one accepts that some assaults, which would otherwise be criminal, will occur and consents to such assaults. It is equally patent, however, that to engage in a game of hockey is not to enter a forum to which the criminal law does not extend. To hold otherwise would be to create the hockey arena a sanctuary for unbridled violence to which the law of Parliament and the Queen's justice could not apply.

As far as shifting the blame the claim was that Bertuzzi, unlike Bure, had not been critical of nor antagonistic towards the Canucks - that is patently false.

Bure IMHO is a completely different case than Bertuzzi and deserves to be honoured. Bertuzzi? Not at all.

Bure was the Canucks' first real superstar. Looking around the league, the vast majority of teams have retired the number of the guy that fits that description for their team. From the sounds of it, the big difficulty may be convincing Bure that he's not going to get a hostile reception if he comes back for the ceremony. A good response to Naslund tonight and maybe Gillis making a few more comments about the nature of Bure's departure - and specifically Burke's role in it - might help in that respect.

Does'nt it register with you people that if this is the case and Gillis has to convince Bure of what you said, then he probably shouldn't be honored in this way. Others in this thread wonder if Bure would even show up.

Others suggest that we fans "forgive" him. Bure was making $8mil per year, and never forgave the canucks and never once respected or honored the fans or his contract. He made more money per month than most fans will earn in 20 years, and yet it was all about him.

Does'nt it register with you people that if this is the case and Gillis has to convince Bure of what you said, then he probably shouldn't be honored in this way. Others in this thread wonder if Bure would even show up.

Others suggest that we fans "forgive" him. Bure was making $8mil per year, and never forgave the canucks and never once respected or honored the fans or his contract. He made more money per month than most fans will earn in 20 years, and yet it was all about him.

Well, he never forgave the canucks even through a change of management - that is a fact evidenced by his insistance to be traded. And, he never honored his contract - also fact as evidenced by his sitting out and waiting for a trade.

Well, he never forgave the canucks even through a change of management - that is a fact evidenced by his insistance to be traded. And, he never honored his contract - also fact as evidenced by his sitting out and waiting for a trade.

He was a punk and a prima donna - that, of course is opinion.

Burke was part of the problem when Bure arrived from Russia. When Burke was hired as GM that pretty much ended any chance he would stay.

Bure sat out after being told he would be traded and nothing happened. Gillis forced the trade that his previous agent failed to push.

In 1991, Bure defected from the Soviet Union to play hockey in the NHL. He signed a three-year contract with the Vancouver Canucks for $600,000. Ron Salcer negotiated the contract on Bure's behalf. Bure was not happy with the contract, but accepted it because he was an unknown commodity. Further, the Canucks defended him in an action by the Russian Hockey Federation to prevent him from playing in the NHL. When Bure was named the NHL's Rookie of the Year, he thought the Canucks would renegotiate his contract. When they didn't, he asked to be traded.

In 1991, Bure defected from the Soviet Union to play hockey in the NHL. He signed a three-year contract with the Vancouver Canucks for $600,000. Ron Salcer negotiated the contract on Bure's behalf. Bure was not happy with the contract, but accepted it because he was an unknown commodity. Further, the Canucks defended him in an action by the Russian Hockey Federation to prevent him from playing in the NHL. When Bure was named the NHL's Rookie of the Year, he thought the Canucks would renegotiate his contract. When they didn't, he asked to be traded.

The guy asked to be traded after his rookie year!

The above is apparently from the March 2000 issue of CGA Magazine. It's the introduction to an article about Bure's agent fee/taxable benefits case that's been discussed here before; as far as I know the author has no special knowledge of Bure, his situation, or the Canucks.

In 1991, Bure defected from the Soviet Union to play hockey in the NHL. He signed a three-year contract with the Vancouver Canucks for $600,000. Ron Salcer negotiated the contract on Bure's behalf. Bure was not happy with the contract, but accepted it because he was an unknown commodity. Further, the Canucks defended him in an action by the Russian Hockey Federation to prevent him from playing in the NHL. When Bure was named the NHL's Rookie of the Year, he thought the Canucks would renegotiate his contract. When they didn't, he asked to be traded.

The guy asked to be traded after his rookie year!

That is wrong. Bure never defected. I am personally familiar with the situation as I was working as a player agent at the time and have spoken with some of the principals involved in the past.

If this was from The Riddle of the Russian Rocket, it was poorly researched by Kerry Banks. Banks never spoke with Bure and ignored what actually occurred as reported at the time Bure left Russia and came to the US to fight with the Canucks for the right to sign a contract. Unlike Banks I can actually do research and cite contemporary sources to back up what occurred and not tell some fairy tale.

Bure had finished his military service and had refused to sign a three year contract extension Central Red Army so he was left off the Russian national team for the 1991 Canada Cup as it was feared he would not return to Russia. He ultimately signed a short term (one year) "contract" under duress.

The news agency said Bure and Davydov were left off the Canada Cup squad as punishment for seeking short-term contracts with the Red Army team CSKA and refusing to sign three-year pacts.

Davydov, a 24-year-old forward, was drafted by the Winnipeg Jets as the 235th choice of the 1989 NHL draft.

Jets spokesman Michael O'Hearn said club management has talked with the Soviets about releasing Davydov, but it appears the Soviets want to hang on to their players at least until the Canada Cup and the 1992 Olympics.

O'Hearn said it appears the Soviets are telling their players that unless they sign new three-year deals, they will not only not play in major events, but will not play hockey at all.

"We would like to play for our team at the Canada Cup tournament," Bure said.

"We have done a lot of training but the team may go without us."

The Gazette. Montreal, Que.: Aug 17, 1991. pg. C.1

Overview: People keep waiting for the demise of the Soviet Union's hockey program and maybe this is the year it could happen. The Soviets lost the last world championship to Sweden and go into this tournament without all but a handful of their key people from 1987. Compounding the problem was the fact that a couple of younger players - Pavel Bure, Alexei Kovalev, Valery Zelepukhin, Evgeny Davydov - were denied permission to play because they refused to sign a contract, obligating them to the Olympic team.

The Canucks would not make Bure a contract offer so he was unable to get a visa to come to Canada. However he did have a multi-entry visa to get into the US from his appearance in the 1989 World Juniors held in Anchorage Alaska. He used that visa to leave and travelled to California and stayed with Ron Salcer.

Pavel Bure is one Soviet hockey player who'd rather be a Canuck - literally.

Bure has left the Soviet Union and will play for the Vancouver Canucks this season, Le Journal de Montreal reported yesterday.

The newspaper said Bure, 20, has been missing in Moscow since Sept. 5. It said Bure, his younger brother and his father were staying at the home of his agent, Ran Salcer, in Manhattan Beach, Calif.

A quick left winger, Bure was left off the list of players for the Soviet team for the Canada Cup by coach Victor Tikhonov because he refused to commit himself to a three-year contract with the Red Army club.

Here is a report confirming his military service was complete so he was not defecting unlike Mogilny and Fedorov - he travelled legally with his father and brother to the US. It was during that time that Bure married a woman in the US as insurance in case the Canucks did not sign him:

The Soviet Union unveiled its future of hockey at the 1989 world junior championships in Anchorage, Alaska.

The line of left winger Alexander Mogilny, 20, centre Sergei Fedorov, 19, and right winger Pavel Bure, 17, did nothing in the darkness of that Alaskan winter to dispel the notion.

It was a Soviet dream team, a dashing and highly-skilled attacking unit that would no doubt proudly carry on the tradition of the vaunted KLM line - Vladimir Krutov, Igor Larionov and Sergei Makarov.

But Mogilny defected a few months later to join the Buffalo Sabres. Fedorov waited until the summer of the next year to slip away to become a Detroit Red Wing.

The exodus is now complete. Vancouver Canucks draft pick Bure, along with his father (Vladimir) and 17-year-old brother (Valery), arrived from the Soviet Union last week in California. They are currently in the care of Los Angeles-based agent Ron Salcer.
...
One positive sign is that the Moscow native has fulfilled his two- year military obligation to the Central Red Army. When he refused to sign a contract with the Red Army club and the national team for this season - and was left off the Soviet Canada Cup entry as punishment - it was obvious he was preparing to leave. No one expected it would be so soon.

The first question that will have to be answered - the determination probably will be made by NHL president John Ziegler - is whether Bure has any legal responsibilities to his Soviet club team. We can only hope Ziegler is more expeditious now than he was the last time he investigated Bure's status.

That was when the Canucks drafted him (113th over-all in 1989) amid protests from other NHL clubs he wasn't eligible. Ziegler took a full year to decide, ruled against the Canucks and 24 hours later reversed his decision.

Ziegler's about-face in the hours leading up to the 1990 entry draft may turn out to be the salvation of the Canucks' cursed franchise.

Another consideration is to what extent to compensate the Soviet Ice Hockey Federation or Central Red Army. The Canucks are not obliged to do anything - the NHL is still working on a standard agreement with the Soviets - but may want to soothe hurt feelings for the sake of future endeavors.

Bure would have been here long ago if not for his younger brother. Valery, too, is a talented player. He played left wing on the Soviet team at the under-18 tournament in Japan this summer. An NHL scout says he was among the top two or three players on his team.

"Pavel was always terrified that if he left without going through the proper channels, his brother would have to pay the price," says Mike Murray of the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association. Murray knows Bure as well as anyone in North America. The two first met in 1986 when Murray was host to Bure's Soviet midget team. They have developed a close and lasting friendship, seeing each other at world junior championships and other international events.

The problem of his brother was erased when the two Bure boys left the Soviet Union together, along with their father, a former Olympic silver medalist in freestyle swimming. Bure's parents are reportedly separated, explaining the absence of his mother.

The conditions under which Bure's contract was signed are contained in a sworn deposition that has been forwarded to National Hockey League president John Ziegler.

The deposition was sent by Ron Salcer, the agent working for the player's release from the Soviet Ice Hockey Federation.

"He was locked in a room for 2 1/2 hours," Salcer said of the negotiations between Bure and Soviet hockey officials in August, 1990. "They say: 'You sign this. If not, you'll be in Siberia. You have to sign or you'll never see anybody again.' "

Bure, 20, is living in California with his father, brother and new bride, and wants to play this season for the Canucks. Salcer said he hopes the deposition will result in the NHL ruling Bure's contract invalid because it was signed under duress.

As Kent Gilchrist wrote the Canucks were in no hurry to sign Bure after he had arrived in the US:

If it seems Vancouver Canucks are moving on Pavel Bure with all the speed of a glacier, that's because it is so.

Bure's decision to leave the Soviet Union disrupts the Canucks' timetable, which had him coming out sometime after the Winter Olympics in February.

By then, of course, the Canucks' president, general manager and coach Pat Quinn would have a better assessment of the club's performance and its future needs.
...
The sudden appearance of Bure has put the speedy Russian winger under the saddle, so to speak.

The best thing that could happen for the Canucks is for the NHL to declare Bure's Soviet contract valid. This is despite the fact the 20-year-old Bure is conceded as being as fast as any player in the world.

It would give the club a bit of time to try and get their captain and cornerstone player Linden under contract, while player agent Ron Salcer goes to court to try and get Bure's contract declared invalid.

"We can't afford to let that happen," said Quinn the coach, while the general manager said there was no way the Canucks would accede to his suggestion he is worth $1 million per season. "There is no doubt we had problems when we brought in the other Russian players and we don't want to repeat the situation."

And Pavel can't help but be a little concerned by the Canucks' underwhelming attitude. He is likely the superstar they've never had. Quinn and Burke have based a great deal of their credibility as managers on their acumen in drafting him. But when this super talent arrives, a year sooner than expected, Bure is treated as an aggravation, like a dinner guest who shows up on the wrong night.

Like good boy scouts, the Canucks talk about wanting to play by the rules and do the honorable thing, according to the contract. In the past, though, rules and regulations never seemed to be an issue when signing other personnel.

The Canucks left him dangling and sitting in the USA after he had left Russia as they were not sure they wanted to sign him for the season. Brian Burke (then assistant GM) called once and then left him in limbo. As agent Ron Salcer said at the time:

"When Brian Burke was down here, he told Pavel he was going to make him the top priority and that he was going to send down some equipment. I never heard from him again," says Salcer. "He's showing me contempt. I felt I had to speak out. Their (the Bure family) spirits are dragging.

"As far as me bringing them out too soon, I had nothing to do with it."

Salcer finally got fed up and forced the issue of determining the validity of the short term contract alleged to have been signed under duress by filing a law suit in the US to have it set aside. And the Canucks indicated they might side with the Russians against Bure.

The Vancouver Canucks will argue against allowing draft pick Pavel Bure out of his Soviet contract this season unless he and the Canucks reach a conditional agreement by Oct. 30, Vancouver vice-president Brian Burke confirmed Tuesday.

Bure, 20, the Canucks' sixth-round pick in the 1988 NHL draft and regarded as one of the best pro prospects in the world, is suing for his release from a contract with the Soviet Central Red Army team and goes to court in Detroit on Oct. 30.

If the contract is ruled invalid, Bure would become a free agent 15 days later and could sign with another NHL team.

Burke emphasized the Canucks' No. 1 priority is to reach an agreement with Bure before the hearing in Wayne County Circuit Court. But he said if an agreement is unlikely, the Canucks will argue on the side of the Soviets to stop - or at least delay - Bure signing with a rival team.
...
Manhattan Beach, Calif., player agent Ron Salcer, who represents Bure, launched the lawsuit against the Soviets on the grounds the player's contract was signed under duress and the Red Army later breached the deal.

"If we don't think we can sign him, needless to say we hope his lawsuit fails," Burke said.

The Russians did not have much of case because the alleged contract did not have the usual enforceable terms that a contract would be expected to have so they were prepared to let Bure leave for money. The Canucks were low-balling Bure and did not want him released from his contract as he would then be UFA in two weeks so Burke retained US legal counsel to argue against Bure:

If the contract is upheld, Bure remains Canucks property until its expiration next spring. If Bure is declared free of Soviet contractual duties, the Canucks have only 14 days to sign one of the top 20-year-old players in the world before he becomes a free agent.

The Canucks have stated that if they fail to sign Bure, they would prefer his contract be upheld in order to retain his rights for a longer period of time. With the hiring of legal counsel, there seems at least a slim possibility the Canucks may attempt to on the Soviets' behalf.

"I spoke with (Brown) him and that does not concern me at this time," said Bure's lawyer, David Chardavoyne. "I think it was more for negotiating purposes."

Burke, who hasn't returned calls to The Province since Sunday, couldn't be reached for comment Wednesday.

Although Salcer gave every indication Tuesday night that a deal was close, it seems the sense of urgency had dissipated by Wednesday and that the young Soviet and his advisor would gamble on a favorable ruling today.

Chardavoyne seemed confident his side would be the victor in today's proceedings - especially in light of a bizarre communique from Ivan Akentjev, director of the Central Red Army Sports Club, which is the umbrella organization for 38 sports teams - of which the hockey club is just one.

"It was directed to (NHL president John) Ziegler and they faxed over a copy," said Chardavoyne. "It says the position of the Central Red Army team is that they will allow Pavel Bure to play for Vancouver, but they're interested in compensation.

"If it wasn't clear before, now it's really clear. We're not talking about inalienable rights, we're not talking about contracts anymore, we're talking about money. So let the negotiations begin."

Central Red Army demanded $250,000 to release Bure but the Canucks refused to go beyond $200,000. Ultimately the Canucks forced Bure to pay part of his own transfer fee ($50,000) out of his future NHL contract to the Russian hockey authorities before they would sign him to his initial contract. No other Russian player with any other team was required to do that by his NHL team.

After nearly six hours of sensitive negotiations in Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Kathleen MacDonald's chambers, Red Army general manager Valery Gushin agreed to accept a $250,000 US transfer fee for Bure's rights. Vancouver had consented to pay no more than $200,000 and when the two sides appeared to near an impasse that might have delayed Bure's career at least another month, the 20-year-old right winger agreed to kick in the rest.

And at the last minute the Canucks tried an end run to tie Bure to the outstanding Krutov transfer fees but were unsuccessful as those fees were owed to parties in addition to the Moscow CSKA (Central Red Army) hockey team. The Canucks would shortly be hammered in arbitration for over $1 million for Krutov.

During the process, the Canucks tried to put the Vladimir Krutov transfer fees to rest as well, apparently offering $500,000 to retire both he and Bure. But Gushin said they were not the sole interest in the Krutov matter.

As I read it; Salcer wanted Bure free of the russian contract as to either negotiate with whatever team he wished (Bure being a free agent) or leaverage their position to demand more money - which they did. Seems like a typical negotiation tactic.

On the other side of the coin, of course the canucks are gonna fight the contract dispute on the side of the russian federation if it means retaining Bure's rights for another year. This isn't bad faith, it's securing your asset.

If Burke didn't negotiate the way he did, Bure would likely have never became a Canuck. He could've/would've became a Red Wing or Ranger.

As I read it; Salcer wanted Bure free of the russian contract as to either negotiate with whatever team he wished (Bure being a free agent) or leaverage their position to demand more money - which they did. Seems like a typical negotiation tactic.

On the other side of the coin, of course the canucks are gonna fight the contract dispute on the side of the russian federation if it means retaining Bure's rights for another year. This isn't bad faith, it's securing your asset.

If Burke didn't negotiate the way he did, Bure would likely have never became a Canuck. He could've/would've became a Red Wing or Ranger.

How so! The tactics are typical - from both sides. One side want to gain as much leverage as possible, while the other side wants to fence in their asset. The incidentals don't really matter.

By reading your post, hearing all the stories through out the years and seeing the ugly outcome of the Bure years, I wonder if he ever did want to play here at all. I really get the feeling that he would've preferred to win the case against the russian federation and go free agent - thus never playing in Vancouver at all. It looks like the Bure camp was pissed that the Russians negotiated with the Canucks.

I don't understand how the argument of Bure beiing mistreated by ignoring his trade demands supports a jersey retirement.

If the guy didn't want to be here for so much of his Canucks career, why the hell should the Canucks retire his number? Let's celebrate the guy who hated it here! Whoo!

I loved Bure when I was a kid, but since all the information has come out I've soured on him. Yes, he was a hell of a player, but it makes no sense to honour a player who wanted nothing to do with the organization. Are we that desperate?

[QUOTE=Cromulence;29536255]I don't understand the argument of feeling sorry for Bure beig mistreated because he wanted to be traded but they wouldn't trade him at all supports a jersey retirement.

If the guy didn't want to be here for so much of his Canucks career, why the hell should the Canucks retire his number? Let's celebrate the guy who hated it here! Whoo!

I loved Bure when I was a kid, but since all the information has come out I've soured on him. Yes, he was a hell of a player, but it makes no sense to honour a player who wanted nothing to do with the organization. Are we that desperate?[/QUOTE]

Thank's for asking Crom, because NO! I for one am not that desperate. Wetcoaster (and a few others), however do seem desperate so....

How so! The tactics are typical - from both sides. One side want to gain as much leverage as possible, while the other side wants to fence in their asset. The incidentals don't really matter.

By reading your post, hearing all the stories through out the years and seeing the ugly outcome of the Bure years, I wonder if he ever did want to play here at all. I really get the feeling that he would've preferred to win the case against the russian federation and go free agent - thus never playing in Vancouver at all. It looks like the Bure camp was pissed that the Russians negotiated with the Canucks.

Salcer forced the negotiations because the Canucks were prepared to sit back.

I don't understand how the argument of Bure beiing mistreated by ignoring his trade demands supports a jersey retirement.

If the guy didn't want to be here for so much of his Canucks career, why the hell should the Canucks retire his number? Let's celebrate the guy who hated it here! Whoo!

I loved Bure when I was a kid, but since all the information has come out I've soured on him. Yes, he was a hell of a player, but it makes no sense to honour a player who wanted nothing to do with the organization. Are we that desperate?

EDIT - Clarification

Naslund also asked for a trade and didnt want to be here.

He also displayed that in his last 3 seasons here. Why is he up there?